Revisiting 'The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning' edited by Fischer and Forester (1993) reminds the reader that the path-breaking volume had a double focus: the argumentative turn was meant to meet analytical as well as practical challenges, focussing on both the analysis and the articulation of policy arguments. How is the practical task of articulation to be linked to the task of analyzing policy argumentation? Is it possible to deal with both tasks in one turn? If different approaches are required to address these two tasks, how are policy analysts to come to terms with issues of authority and legitimacy of policy analysis and its role in democratic policy-making? Rethinking the role of policy analysts not only in light of effectiveness but also with regard to legitimacy requires critical reflection on at least three dimensions of policy analysis and policy-making: content, process and context. If the 'argumentative turn' is to maintain its specific analytical focus and its critical orientation on communicative practises, then the way to go is not to broaden or extend the underlying notion of argumentation, but to specify its meaning as an analytical concept and to rethink its role in a multidimensional approach that combines argumentation analysis with the analysis of procedures and contexts of policy analysis and policy-making.